Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 541 of 1978, decided on 8th November, 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 17‑9‑1978 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in S.A.O. No. 48 of 1976/BWP).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(3) (a)(ii)(a)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Bona fide personal need‑‑Landlord occupying rented shop adjacent to shop in dispute‑‑Landlord had right to get his own shop vacated‑‑High Court being justified in concluding from evidence and in agreement with District Judge that landlord required shop in dispute in good faith for extension of his business and for storing his goods‑‑Concurrent findings of fact not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Najam Parvez 1976 S C M R 52 ref.

Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th November, 1978.

This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 17th of September, 1978. Zahoor Ahmad respondent applied for the ejectment of the petitioners herein from the shop in dispute situated in Shahi Bazar, Bahawalpur, under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on the main ground that he required the shop in good faith for his personal use. But the learned Rent Controller Bahawalpur dismissed his application on the 10th of July, 1976. The learned District Judge Bahawalpur accepted his appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioners on the 1st of November, 1976. This order was affirmed in second appeal of the petitioners rejected by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Bahawalpur on the 17th of September, 1978. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal by the aggrieved petitioners.

Briefly the admitted and proved facts are that the shop in dispute originally belonged to one Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan and was occupied by the petitioners herein as his monthly tenants. The owner however, afterwards sold the shop in favour of Zahoor Ahmad respondent on the 22nd of January, 1974, where after the petitioners also attorney to him. In course of time the respondent applied for the ejectment of the petitioners from the shop on the main ground that he required the same in good faith for the purpose of his own business. It is common ground that the respondent is already running his business in the locality in the name and style of Popular Cycle Dealers' in a shop adjacent to the one in dispute. He is also occupying another small shop being used as a store room situated in Koocha Gul Hassan on rent under the Auqaf Department. According to the testimony of the respondent as his own witness (P.W. 3) some of his goods in trade were also lying stored in a portion of his residential house.

In support of his case that he required the shop in dispute bona fide for his personal use, he produced two witnesses namely, Muhammad Zafar Khan and Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq (P.Ws. 1 and 2) and also appeared as his own witness (P.W. 3). In rebuttal Muhammad Jamil (R.W. 1) admitted that the respondents had taken a godown on rent for the purpose of his business situated in Koocha Gul Hassan. But he refuted the contention that the shop in dispute was in good faith required by him.

The learned Rent Controller was inclined to hold from the evidence that the respondent‑landlord did not require the shop in dispute in good faith for his business purposes and that he had made the application for the ejectment of the petitioners mala fide on account of their business rivalry as both the parties were competing in their business for the sale of cycles in the two adjacent shops. But this finding was reversed in appeal by the District Judge and affirmed in second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who dismissed the second appeal of the petitioners. The High Court in dismissing the appeal has inter alia, held as under:

"In the instant case the main plea taken by the landlord was that he required the shop in dispute for his own needs and that the shop in another locality taken on rent and used by him as a store was not suitable for his requirements. It was emphatically urged that the landlord was already occupying a shop belonging to him and another he had taken on rent. It has well been explained by him that one obtained on rental basis was not suitable for his needs, and as held in Abdul Salam Akhtar v. Najam Parvez 1976 S C M R 52, the landlord has a right to get his own shop vacated in spite of the fact that he was already occupying a rented premises. The learned District Judge, as a question of fact, held that the present shop was adjacent to the shop already in his occupation, and if both the shops were connected, it would be more useful to the landlord. He observed that the need of the landlord was bona fide. Having taken into consideration the evidence led by the landlord, the learned Judge held that the landlord had proved his need which, in the circumstances of the case, was honest and in good faith. Such a finding of fact, being not based on any misreading of evidence, is binding in second appeal in spite of fact that the finding is not concurrent."

On this view of the matter the High Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. We find that the High Court was justified in concluding from the evidence, in agreement with the District Judge, that the landlord, in the circumstances of the case, required the shop in dispute in good faith for the extension of his business and for storing his goods. There is, therefore, hardly any room for interference in these proceedings with the concurrent findings of fact thus recorded by the two Courts in appeal. This petition has no force and is hereby, therefore, dismissed.

M . I . Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.